The left should certainly not proclaim such absolute "principles" as "We are against Western powers' military intervention whatever the circumstances." This is not a political position, but a religious taboo. One can safely bet that the present intervention in Libya will prove most embarrassing for imperialist powers in the future. As those members of the US establishment who opposed their country's intervention rightly warned, the next time Israel's air force bombs one of its neighbours, whether Gaza or Lebanon, people will demand a no-fly zone. I, for one, definitely will. Pickets should be organised at the UN in New York demanding it. We should all be prepared to do so, with now a powerful argument.
The left should learn how to expose imperialist hypocrisy by using against it the very same moral weapons that it cynically exploits, instead of rendering this hypocrisy more effective by appearing as not caring about moral considerations. They are the ones with double standards, not us.
[Gilbert Achcar grew up in Lebanon, and is currently professor at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) of the University of London. His books include The Clash of Barbarisms: The Making of the New World Disorder, published in 13 languages, Perilous Power: The Middle East and U.S. Foreign Policy, co-authored with Noam Chomsky, and most recently The Arabs and the Holocaust: The Arab-Israeli War of Narratives.]
It's a somewhat long article. I won't tackle the whole thing. It's obvious from reading it that Gilbert Achcar along with Juan Cole and the talking-head "liberals/progressives" on MSNBC support some UN/NATO military action/intervention in Libya.
I linked this article because of all the articles, videos, and commentary I've seen to date, it appears to appreciate the historical moment in terms of pointing to the hypocrisy of the Empire in terms of the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP).
Today was the first I came across the article. I see therefore Gilbert Achcar and I arrived at some of the same ideas independently.
You may think it strange that as a devout Christian, I would link to an article stating the following:
The left should certainly not proclaim such absolute "principles" as "We are against Western powers' military intervention whatever the circumstances." This is not a political position, but a religious taboo.
Well, I am a socialist but not a Marxist. I'm a Christian. Jesus was not capitalistic, but he was not a coercive democrat or coercive socialist. How do these things jibe with Gilbert Achcar's correct observation concerning the lack of consistency in the application of the RtoP?
The truth is that Gilbert Achcar is partially right, not completely right. He is flat out wrong that "The left should certainly not proclaim such absolute 'principles' as 'We are against Western powers' military intervention whatever the circumstances.'" Liberals should always stand against militarism. This is the evolution of understanding. It's time humanity face it.
Gilbert Achcar trotted out Hitler the way Hitler has been trotted out against Gandhi, the way the Zionists trot out Hitler when the Zionists point at Iran. The British were able to be reached by Gandhi where Hitler simply said he would have shot Gandhi. Well, Churchill certainly had wanted Gandhi gone and was not above gassing the "inferior" breeds.
The real question is where does the violence end? It started somewhere and has been cascading through pre-history and history ever since. Hitler had his "excuses." Also, it really can't be proven that Hitler was above being reasoned with. It can never be proven that anyone is above being reasoned with. It hasn't been proven that Qaddaffi is above being reasoned with. Who's tried it? I doubt that Obama got him on the phone. He could have. He could have met with him face-to-face. He should have, frankly.
Why wasn't Qaddaffi at the UN shortly before, during, and then after the protests began if needs be? Why weren't all of the leaders of the Arabs states there? What kind of pathetically inept, nearly nonexistent foreign policy has been going on? Why did the Europeans meet with the US and absent even Turkey to decide what would happen in Libya? The Russians and Chinese had a say because they have vetoes on the UN Security Council (UNSC). However, they knew the whole thing was cobbled together and that Qaddaffi hadn't really been talked to — no one talked turkey to him.
Now what though? What good is this RtoP if it isn't consistently applied? I've been tweeting about it and posting on Facebook about it and blogging here some about it.
Here's my issue. I don't want to see a No-Fly Zone over Gaza more than I want to see the Zionists completely repent. Gilbert Achcar, no academic slouch, certainly can understand that. What am I though, too non-realpolitik? I'm too optimistic? How can an apocalyptical writer be too optimistic? Look, I'm spiritual. I know there is prophecy too. I believe in historicism within a properly defined context.
Look, secularists do not own liberalism or consistency. In fact, the religious do. That is no more a bold statement than the position of Gilbert Achcar that the left should reject pacifism because it's religious, though I believe he perhaps means spiritual or even irrational or unreasoned.
The violence needs to end. That end doesn't come via No-Fly Zones. It comes by Qaddaffi seeing the light and the Empire seeing the light at the same time in the same place. It comes by everyone seeing the light at the same time in the same place and then sticking with it. That's the only way the violence will end short of God ending human ability to make violence. We are free to be slaves to violence that is enslaving. Let us be truly free by choosing anti-violence always, everywhere. Now that's consistency.
Do you have to believe in the metaphysical to grasp that much? No. However, there are things you can't grasp beyond that anti-violence unless you believe in the metaphysical. There are things you can't grasp unless you believe in God. Then comes the Holy Spirit. Many believe. Few are baptized by fire.
This post is too short to explain it all.
Ponder Isaiah 32:1-8 (my favorite Old Testament to New Testament statement):
Behold, a king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judgment. And a man shall be as an hiding place from the wind, and a covert from the tempest; as rivers of water in a dry place, as the shadow of a great rock in a weary land. And the eyes of them that see shall not be dim, and the ears of them that hear shall hearken. The heart also of the rash shall understand knowledge, and the tongue of the stammerers shall be ready to speak plainly. The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful. For the vile person will speak villany, and his heart will work iniquity, to practise hypocrisy, and to utter error against the LORD, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail. The instruments also of the churl are evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right. But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)